1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
|
# The tyranny of structurelessness
=> https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm A copy of the original article. These Cliff's notes focus on the generic points of the article, not on its original context (the feminist movement).
Leaderless, structureless groups as an organizational form is a reaction to over-structured society in which most of us live that give others control over us.
Structurelessness encourages participation in discussion and personal insight, but it does not achieve more than that.
Structureless groups struggle when they want to achieve something more specific than raising consciousness, because the groups do not want to change structure when they change their tasks, because they think other organizational forms can be anything but oppressive.
## Formal and informal structures
Structureless groups evolve into having tacit structure due to the diversity of the people that form them.
Structurelessness only prevents the formation of formal structures, not informal ones. Decision-making rules are known only by those who make the decisions.
To give everyone the opportunity to participate, structure must be explicit and the rules of decision-making must be open and available to everyone, so they must be formalized.
## The nature of elitism
Elites can only be groups, not individuals.
Elites have power over a larger group without direct responsibility.
A person is an elitist by being a part or advocating the elite, not by being notorious.
Elites are not conspiracies, generally they are groups of friends that happen to participate in some activity together.
Elites are communication networks because they are groups of friends that talk.
Groups might have one or more communication networks and they might overlap. The communication networks do not necessarily have to be an elite. Multiple communication groups might compete and only one might become an elite.
In a structured group, the group competition is public and other members of the group can arbitrate and make demands on the groups.
Elites can be spotted in groups, they listen and don't interrupt other members more than they do with non-members. Approval of the elite is necessary for things to happen.
Membership of the elite tends to have some required characteristic. Common themes are related to the friendship nature of the elite, but not to the effectiveness for the larger group's purpose.
It is easier to form an elite at the beginning of the group, by bringing existing friends in. Otherwise, the elite must be formed through new effort. Elites need to maintain themselves by adding new members. Outsides might find a member of the elite to sponsor them.
Elite forming and maintenance require time, so people with major commitments normally find it impossible to join. A formal structure of decision making helps the overworked (and others) participate in the group.
Elites are not inevitably bad, they are only inevitable. Elites can do useful things. But elites have uncontrolled power within their group.
Two negative consequences: liked people have power independently of their skills, which is bad for doing significant things; elites have no obligation to be responsible. The elite usually tries to be responsible to maintain their influence, but the group cannot compel them to be responsible, this is up to the interests of the elite.
## The "star" system
Society expects groups to make decisions and to select spokespeople. Society does not want to listen to all individuals in a group, they want to know what the group feels. There are only three ways to know group opinion:
* Voting
* Surveys
* Spokespeople
The public is conditioned to look for spokespeople.
If there are no official spokespeople, the public might choose notable members of the group, but their opinions might not be representative of the group: "stars".
The stars might not desire to be, and the members of the group might resent the stars.
Stars cannot be removed by the group, because the group did not make them stars, only the press can. The press will listen to stars as long as there are no official spokespeople. Members of the group can attack the stars, who might then leave the group, remaining a star but maybe not aligned with the group.
## Political impotence
Sometimes the informal structure of a group might align with what the group wants to do, this gives the appearance of an effective group. However, this is hard to replicate. Normally these groups have four conditions:
* They are task oriented, they were formed with a narrow and specific function.
* They are small and homogeneous, so they have good communication reducing conflicts.
* They have a high degree of communication. This normally limits the group to five people, although 10 to 15 is possible if they have subgroups.
* They have a low degree of skill specialization, so everything can be done by more than one person, so no one is indispensable. (Not everything needs to be doable by everyone.)
Groups composed of smaller effective groups do not tend to become more effective than their parts. These groups generates much motion and few results. These groups tend to be limited to the initial founders and exclude others, esp. the nongregarious, and elitism becomes institutionalized.
Groups without projects spend their time maintaining the elite.
When people cannot join the group and do things, they might do things on their own, which might lead to individual creativity, but many people cannot do this and does not foster cooperative group effort. Such people might drop out of the interests of the group, or join groups with other interests, maybe with new elites.
The old elites can perceive these new elites as misaligned threats. The old elites can accuse the new elite of attracting specific groups of people from their group.
The old elites can become public and formalize their original power structure as a formal structure. If the informal elite was well structured they might be able to do this, but groups that required structure the most might not be able to do it, because they adhere more to the ideology of structurelessness and they are more vulnerable to a takeover.
Unstructured groups might choose to participate in larger groups with more influence and capabilities, but they can only have little influence in the larger group and their ideas might be diffused, but rarely implemented.
## Principles of democratic structuring
Groups should not blindly accept or ignore traditional forms of organization. These forms might be effective or not. Structure is not inherently bad, only excess of it.
Essential principles:
* Democratic delegation of specific authority to specific individuals. People who show interest or willingness who are selected are committed.
* Delegates should be responsible to who selected them. This way the group controls the authorities.
* Distribution of authority over as many people as possible, preventing monopoly of power and requiring consultations. It gives more people the opportunity for responsibility and learning.
* Rotation of tasks among individuals to prevent responsibilities from being someone's property. But not too much rotation so that it prevents learning and satisfaction.
* Rational allocation of tasks; by ability, interest and responsibility instead of by standing in the group. Learn through apprenticeship rather than sink or swim. Do not demoralize people by having responsibilities you cannot do well. Do not blacklist people from doing what they can do well.
* Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as possible, giving individuals more power.
* Equal access to resources needed by the group. Resources owned by a member can be controlled by a member. This includes skills and information.
These principles prevent informal elites.
|
